Markups

[stato_1]

People seem to overestimate their edge vs fish.  I think I play on 3 sites that have a higher proportion of recs than the others.  I checked my stats on those sites earlier and was fairly surprised to discover my overall ROI is 20% and my overall ROI on the fishier sites is only 5% more (and my money return is practically zero after nearly 2000 games!)

I don't think it is just me either, I checked three others I know who play on both Stars and the French sites and compared ROIs on the French sites vs Stars.  One was 10% better, one 50%, one was 4% worse.  

I know sample sizes are smaller on the fishier sites, but if you have a field with more fish than average present, then I don't think you have as much edge as you'd naturally assume (the average over the 4 people is around 15%).  I'd say all these sites I am thinking of have a significant proportion of genuinely terrible players on them.  It was pretty much the same when I played cash too, a high proportion of fish were in amongst those I won most money from, but at the other end of the table there was a fair smattering of fishier players too.  Simply, some hands you are always getting your chips in with a race, whether you are playing against Jerry Yang or Phil Ivey.

I haven't played a whole lot in the WSOP main (maybe 40 or 50 hours, maybe 15 tables), but am not at all convinced it starts off any fishier than the French sites, or some of the lower entry fee tournaments on Stars, or even in the Million on stars proper.  In addition, the tables must get tougher by the day and though you may have a big edge at the start, do you really have the same edge when the big prizes are decided (or even when the smaller ones are)?   And those big prizes are the ones that kick up your ROI long run.  As MTT players go, I am probably one of the better ones, but am I really going to have any edge at an average hold'em WSOP final table?  Do the people who sell at big markups really believe they will?  

It is often mentioned in staking requests how the fishier entry justifies the mark up in the main event, but I don't see it mentioned that the higher variance from such a big field should mean the mark up should be lowered.  Whilst the big population of fishy players is played up, the high proportion of the very best poker players on the planet doesn't get much of a mention.  

I think people underestimate the value only they get.  I am not really in Vegas for the ROI, this is very much a trip where I must be -EV after expenses, yet knowing this I am still going.  If I wanted to maximise ROI I'd be staying here and playing on my PC, or at a DTD deepstack or playing the Sky Poker Tour.  I am there for the bracelet, the entry on my Hendon Mob, and to be able to have something to bore the grandkids with.  And those things are the ones that only I really benefit from, and they should mean I should be willing to take a lower mark up too.

Anyway all feels a bit TLDR now.  Finally agree with Pleno, people should be keeping a chunk if playing a big event.  I don't mean where someone is clearly under it wants a few dollars to play something small or a reasonable schedule.  But if people want to play something big, they should back up their belief they have the big edge with hard cash.

I think you've missed a very important point here. Mark up for the same person should certainly not decrease with an increase in field size, it should most certainly increase if that person has an edge in the first place.

I could explain this with some maths but I sense people would just find it boring

[The Camel]

People seem to overestimate their edge vs fish.  I think I play on 3 sites that have a higher proportion of recs than the others.  I checked my stats on those sites earlier and was fairly surprised to discover my overall ROI is 20% and my overall ROI on the fishier sites is only 5% more (and my money return is practically zero after nearly 2000 games!)

I don't think it is just me either, I checked three others I know who play on both Stars and the French sites and compared ROIs on the French sites vs Stars.  One was 10% better, one 50%, one was 4% worse.  

I know sample sizes are smaller on the fishier sites, but if you have a field with more fish than average present, then I don't think you have as much edge as you'd naturally assume (the average over the 4 people is around 15%).  I'd say all these sites I am thinking of have a significant proportion of genuinely terrible players on them.  It was pretty much the same when I played cash too, a high proportion of fish were in amongst those I won most money from, but at the other end of the table there was a fair smattering of fishier players too.  Simply, some hands you are always getting your chips in with a race, whether you are playing against Jerry Yang or Phil Ivey.

I haven't played a whole lot in the WSOP main (maybe 40 or 50 hours, maybe 15 tables), but am not at all convinced it starts off any fishier than the French sites, or some of the lower entry fee tournaments on Stars, or even in the Million on stars proper.  In addition, the tables must get tougher by the day and though you may have a big edge at the start, do you really have the same edge when the big prizes are decided (or even when the smaller ones are)?   And those big prizes are the ones that kick up your ROI long run.  As MTT players go, I am probably one of the better ones, but am I really going to have any edge at an average hold'em WSOP final table?  Do the people who sell at big markups really believe they will?  

It is often mentioned in staking requests how the fishier entry justifies the mark up in the main event, but I don't see it mentioned that the higher variance from such a big field should mean the mark up should be lowered.  Whilst the big population of fishy players is played up, the high proportion of the very best poker players on the planet doesn't get much of a mention.  

I think people underestimate the value only they get.  I am not really in Vegas for the ROI, this is very much a trip where I must be -EV after expenses, yet knowing this I am still going.  If I wanted to maximise ROI I'd be staying here and playing on my PC, or at a DTD deepstack or playing the Sky Poker Tour.  I am there for the bracelet, the entry on my Hendon Mob, and to be able to have something to bore the grandkids with.  And those things are the ones that only I really benefit from, and they should mean I should be willing to take a lower mark up too.

Anyway all feels a bit TLDR now.  Finally agree with Pleno, people should be keeping a chunk if playing a big event.  I don't mean where someone is clearly under it wants a few dollars to play something small or a reasonable schedule.  But if people want to play something big, they should back up their belief they have the big edge with hard cash.

Would have thought the Main Event at the WSOP was the lowest variance tournament of the year.

Definitely the lowest variance tourny of £1000 or more

[stato_1]

People seem to overestimate their edge vs fish.  I think I play on 3 sites that have a higher proportion of recs than the others.  I checked my stats on those sites earlier and was fairly surprised to discover my overall ROI is 20% and my overall ROI on the fishier sites is only 5% more (and my money return is practically zero after nearly 2000 games!)

I don't think it is just me either, I checked three others I know who play on both Stars and the French sites and compared ROIs on the French sites vs Stars.  One was 10% better, one 50%, one was 4% worse.  

I know sample sizes are smaller on the fishier sites, but if you have a field with more fish than average present, then I don't think you have as much edge as you'd naturally assume (the average over the 4 people is around 15%).  I'd say all these sites I am thinking of have a significant proportion of genuinely terrible players on them.  It was pretty much the same when I played cash too, a high proportion of fish were in amongst those I won most money from, but at the other end of the table there was a fair smattering of fishier players too.  Simply, some hands you are always getting your chips in with a race, whether you are playing against Jerry Yang or Phil Ivey.

I haven't played a whole lot in the WSOP main (maybe 40 or 50 hours, maybe 15 tables), but am not at all convinced it starts off any fishier than the French sites, or some of the lower entry fee tournaments on Stars, or even in the Million on stars proper.  In addition, the tables must get tougher by the day and though you may have a big edge at the start, do you really have the same edge when the big prizes are decided (or even when the smaller ones are)?   And those big prizes are the ones that kick up your ROI long run.  As MTT players go, I am probably one of the better ones, but am I really going to have any edge at an average hold'em WSOP final table?  Do the people who sell at big markups really believe they will?  

It is often mentioned in staking requests how the fishier entry justifies the mark up in the main event, but I don't see it mentioned that the higher variance from such a big field should mean the mark up should be lowered.  Whilst the big population of fishy players is played up, the high proportion of the very best poker players on the planet doesn't get much of a mention.  

I think people underestimate the value only they get.  I am not really in Vegas for the ROI, this is very much a trip where I must be -EV after expenses, yet knowing this I am still going.  If I wanted to maximise ROI I'd be staying here and playing on my PC, or at a DTD deepstack or playing the Sky Poker Tour.  I am there for the bracelet, the entry on my Hendon Mob, and to be able to have something to bore the grandkids with.  And those things are the ones that only I really benefit from, and they should mean I should be willing to take a lower mark up too.

Anyway all feels a bit TLDR now.  Finally agree with Pleno, people should be keeping a chunk if playing a big event.  I don't mean where someone is clearly under it wants a few dollars to play something small or a reasonable schedule.  But if people want to play something big, they should back up their belief they have the big edge with hard cash.

Would have thought the Main Event at the WSOP was the lowest variance tournament of the year.

Definitely the lowest variance tourny of £1000 or more

These are both extremely false statements also. Might be true if every tournament had 6000 runners. Im pretty sure it must be the biggest variance live tournament every single year

[The Camel]

People seem to overestimate their edge vs fish.  I think I play on 3 sites that have a higher proportion of recs than the others.  I checked my stats on those sites earlier and was fairly surprised to discover my overall ROI is 20% and my overall ROI on the fishier sites is only 5% more (and my money return is practically zero after nearly 2000 games!)

I don't think it is just me either, I checked three others I know who play on both Stars and the French sites and compared ROIs on the French sites vs Stars.  One was 10% better, one 50%, one was 4% worse.  

I know sample sizes are smaller on the fishier sites, but if you have a field with more fish than average present, then I don't think you have as much edge as you'd naturally assume (the average over the 4 people is around 15%).  I'd say all these sites I am thinking of have a significant proportion of genuinely terrible players on them.  It was pretty much the same when I played cash too, a high proportion of fish were in amongst those I won most money from, but at the other end of the table there was a fair smattering of fishier players too.  Simply, some hands you are always getting your chips in with a race, whether you are playing against Jerry Yang or Phil Ivey.

I haven't played a whole lot in the WSOP main (maybe 40 or 50 hours, maybe 15 tables), but am not at all convinced it starts off any fishier than the French sites, or some of the lower entry fee tournaments on Stars, or even in the Million on stars proper.  In addition, the tables must get tougher by the day and though you may have a big edge at the start, do you really have the same edge when the big prizes are decided (or even when the smaller ones are)?   And those big prizes are the ones that kick up your ROI long run.  As MTT players go, I am probably one of the better ones, but am I really going to have any edge at an average hold'em WSOP final table?  Do the people who sell at big markups really believe they will?  

It is often mentioned in staking requests how the fishier entry justifies the mark up in the main event, but I don't see it mentioned that the higher variance from such a big field should mean the mark up should be lowered.  Whilst the big population of fishy players is played up, the high proportion of the very best poker players on the planet doesn't get much of a mention.  

I think people underestimate the value only they get.  I am not really in Vegas for the ROI, this is very much a trip where I must be -EV after expenses, yet knowing this I am still going.  If I wanted to maximise ROI I'd be staying here and playing on my PC, or at a DTD deepstack or playing the Sky Poker Tour.  I am there for the bracelet, the entry on my Hendon Mob, and to be able to have something to bore the grandkids with.  And those things are the ones that only I really benefit from, and they should mean I should be willing to take a lower mark up too.

Anyway all feels a bit TLDR now.  Finally agree with Pleno, people should be keeping a chunk if playing a big event.  I don't mean where someone is clearly under it wants a few dollars to play something small or a reasonable schedule.  But if people want to play something big, they should back up their belief they have the big edge with hard cash.

Would have thought the Main Event at the WSOP was the lowest variance tournament of the year.

Definitely the lowest variance tourny of £1000 or more

These are both extremely false statements also. Might be true if every tournament had 6000 runners. Im pretty sure it must be the biggest variance live tournament every single year

Why is this "extremely false"?

Percentage paid is the same (if not higher) as any tournament and you're much more likely to cash in this than any other tournament.

That makes it low variance as far as I can see.

[outragous76]

this is a must listen for everyone in this thread

It is sheets (eric haber) on the 2+2 pokercast talking staking, and he balances both sides of the discussion really well

Starts 2hrs 12 mins in - lasts for circa 30 mins

[claypole]

I am really, really struggling with this debate - and to be fair the OP here; I understand the point made as a valid opinion of that individual, but what's the point?  We seem to be having continual debates that serve no purpose and go round in circles. In fact for that reason I nearly didn't post, but I am like am I missing something. I think I can say that as one of the most frequent buyers and occasional seller on here.

It's so simple it's ridiculous. Every Individual has a choice; I choose to invest in Person A and I choose not to invest in Person B. However much we discuss the relative ROIs, peoples self awareness of capability, their twelve month record - it remains the choice of the individual and impossible to assign an accurate value equation scientifically, it has to be a market driven proce. If PeteL (and not picking on Pete, congrats) or any other member thinks a staking proposal is priced wrong don't buy. If its someone you like, give them the feedback and reasons why - help them, maybe in private.

If we really believe it's an "issue" - what were really saying is the members haven't got the intellect, knowledge or ability to take ownership for their decision and the "community" has a role to play in their decision making.

One suggestion; if we think the community thing is important and really believe there are some issues (which I don't) - why don't we get someone to do a "Hints and Tips; things to consider when investing". Personally I don't feel it's necessary, however as we continually keep getting threads saying it wrong, the only thing we can do is educate the buyers to consider all the right things before they buy - then its their call.

Spot thing; think it will effect traffic and we wouldn't get Flushy, Trigg, Alex, Keys, Shallow selling prices. Bad idea IMO.

Quite like the 30% own money idea - but again, I would rarely buy in someone who has than that and if I did it would be for a specific person and for a reason I have considered.

Anyway, non of that probably makes sense; guess what I am saying is in summary. It's a free market and works. It's the buyers choice. If we think the community hasn't got the knowledge or I intellect make informed buying decisions I think the only role of the forum is generic education. If we think a threads miles off help that individual, preferably privately.

[Woodsey]

I am really, really struggling with this debate - and to be fair the OP here; I understand the point made as a valid opinion of that individual, but what's the point?  We seem to be having continual debates that serve no purpose and go round in circles. In fact for that reason I nearly didn't post, but I am like am I missing something. I think I can say that as one of the most frequent buyers and occasional seller on here.

It's so simple it's ridiculous. Every Individual has a choice; I choose to invest in Person A and I choose not to invest in Person B. However much we discuss the relative ROIs, peoples self awareness of capability, their twelve month record - it remains the choice of the individual and impossible to assign an accurate value equation scientifically, it has to be a market driven proce. If PeteL (and not picking on Pete, congrats) or any other member thinks a staking proposal is priced wrong don't buy. If its someone you like, give them the feedback and reasons why - help them, maybe in private.

If we really believe it's an "issue" - what were really saying is the members haven't got the intellect, knowledge or ability to take ownership for their decision and the "community" has a role to play in their decision making.

One suggestion; if we think the community thing is important and really believe there are some issues (which I don't) - why don't we get someone to do a "Hints and Tips; things to consider when investing". Personally I don't feel it's necessary, however as we continually keep getting threads saying it wrong, the only thing we can do is educate the buyers to consider all the right things before they buy - then its their call.

Spot thing; think it will effect traffic and we wouldn't get Flushy, Trigg, Alex, Keys, Shallow selling prices. Bad idea IMO.

Quite like the 30% own money idea - but again, I would rarely buy in someone who has than that and if I did it would be for a specific person and for a reason I have considered.

Anyway, non of that probably makes sense; guess what I am saying is in summary. It's a free market and works. It's the buyers choice. If we think the community hasn't got the knowledge or I intellect make I formed buying decisions I think the only role of the forum is generic education. If we think a threads miles off help that individual, preferably privately.

Fair enough, but I'm of the view that more this is discussed and people are questioned about what they are charging, the better it is for us buyers, so I like seeing threads about it. It will probably make buyers think a little more before buying and hopefully premiums will drop a little bit as a result.

[Honeybadger]

I just voted with my feet.

I do think having these discussions is a very good idea though.

[claypole]

I am really, really struggling with this debate - and to be fair the OP here; I understand the point made as a valid opinion of that individual, but what's the point?  We seem to be having continual debates that serve no purpose and go round in circles. In fact for that reason I nearly didn't post, but I am like am I missing something. I think I can say that as one of the most frequent buyers and occasional seller on here.

It's so simple it's ridiculous. Every Individual has a choice; I choose to invest in Person A and I choose not to invest in Person B. However much we discuss the relative ROIs, peoples self awareness of capability, their twelve month record - it remains the choice of the individual and impossible to assign an accurate value equation scientifically, it has to be a market driven proce. If PeteL (and not picking on Pete, congrats) or any other member thinks a staking proposal is priced wrong don't buy. If its someone you like, give them the feedback and reasons why - help them, maybe in private.

If we really believe it's an "issue" - what were really saying is the members haven't got the intellect, knowledge or ability to take ownership for their decision and the "community" has a role to play in their decision making.

One suggestion; if we think the community thing is important and really believe there are some issues (which I don't) - why don't we get someone to do a "Hints and Tips; things to consider when investing". Personally I don't feel it's necessary, however as we continually keep getting threads saying it wrong, the only thing we can do is educate the buyers to consider all the right things before they buy - then its their call.

Spot thing; think it will effect traffic and we wouldn't get Flushy, Trigg, Alex, Keys, Shallow selling prices. Bad idea IMO.

Quite like the 30% own money idea - but again, I would rarely buy in someone who has than that and if I did it would be for a specific person and for a reason I have considered.

Anyway, non of that probably makes sense; guess what I am saying is in summary. It's a free market and works. It's the buyers choice. If we think the community hasn't got the knowledge or I intellect make I formed buying decisions I think the only role of the forum is generic education. If we think a threads miles off help that individual, preferably privately.

Fair enough, but I'm of the view that more this is discussed and people are questioned about what they are charging, the better it is for us buyers, so I like seeing threads about it. It will probably make buyers think a little more before buying and hopefully premiums will drop a little bit as a result.

Yes that's fair comment - I guess it's education by discussion, and will make sellers think more for next proposal - however reality is thing that makes them think most is they don't sell. They have to reassess then and do something different or give up.  I guess danger is it stops people trying and we lose market place.  I think the recent examples of the 1.5 70% prove that, they just didn't sell.

I also totally agree people should think about it; I know I certainly do and then often see something like Trigg selling at 1.3 for ISPT and think I shouldn't be selling at 1.1 for something as I'll never be as good as him.

[Doobs]

People seem to overestimate their edge vs fish.  I think I play on 3 sites that have a higher proportion of recs than the others.  I checked my stats on those sites earlier and was fairly surprised to discover my overall ROI is 20% and my overall ROI on the fishier sites is only 5% more (and my money return is practically zero after nearly 2000 games!)

I don't think it is just me either, I checked three others I know who play on both Stars and the French sites and compared ROIs on the French sites vs Stars.  One was 10% better, one 50%, one was 4% worse.  

I know sample sizes are smaller on the fishier sites, but if you have a field with more fish than average present, then I don't think you have as much edge as you'd naturally assume (the average over the 4 people is around 15%).  I'd say all these sites I am thinking of have a significant proportion of genuinely terrible players on them.  It was pretty much the same when I played cash too, a high proportion of fish were in amongst those I won most money from, but at the other end of the table there was a fair smattering of fishier players too.  Simply, some hands you are always getting your chips in with a race, whether you are playing against Jerry Yang or Phil Ivey.

I haven't played a whole lot in the WSOP main (maybe 40 or 50 hours, maybe 15 tables), but am not at all convinced it starts off any fishier than the French sites, or some of the lower entry fee tournaments on Stars, or even in the Million on stars proper.  In addition, the tables must get tougher by the day and though you may have a big edge at the start, do you really have the same edge when the big prizes are decided (or even when the smaller ones are)?   And those big prizes are the ones that kick up your ROI long run.  As MTT players go, I am probably one of the better ones, but am I really going to have any edge at an average hold'em WSOP final table?  Do the people who sell at big markups really believe they will?  

It is often mentioned in staking requests how the fishier entry justifies the mark up in the main event, but I don't see it mentioned that the higher variance from such a big field should mean the mark up should be lowered.  Whilst the big population of fishy players is played up, the high proportion of the very best poker players on the planet doesn't get much of a mention.  

I think people underestimate the value only they get.  I am not really in Vegas for the ROI, this is very much a trip where I must be -EV after expenses, yet knowing this I am still going.  If I wanted to maximise ROI I'd be staying here and playing on my PC, or at a DTD deepstack or playing the Sky Poker Tour.  I am there for the bracelet, the entry on my Hendon Mob, and to be able to have something to bore the grandkids with.  And those things are the ones that only I really benefit from, and they should mean I should be willing to take a lower mark up too.

Anyway all feels a bit TLDR now.  Finally agree with Pleno, people should be keeping a chunk if playing a big event.  I don't mean where someone is clearly under it wants a few dollars to play something small or a reasonable schedule.  But if people want to play something big, they should back up their belief they have the big edge with hard cash.

I think you've missed a very important point here. Mark up for the same person should certainly not decrease with an increase in field size, it should most certainly increase if that person has an edge in the first place.

I could explain this with some maths but I sense people would just find it boring

I doubt you'll be able to put the maths of this situation over my head.

If you had two tournaments with the same mix of players and the same structure, yet one with more people than the other, then if you just look at straight EV your statement looks like it should be true.

If you are talking about an investment, then it is also correct that you should pay less for the same investment with a bigger variance.

So immediately you have two things that conflict.

Then to make your statement you have to assume that tournaments are the same and the balance of good to bad players remain the same throughout, but I don't think you can be confident that the day 5 field in the main is going to be easier than the final table of a GUKPT, or that the final 3 tables of the main have a similar mix to the final 3 in a $1000 WSOP event.  There seems to be far more opportunity to get rid of the chaff in the main than in a shorter tournament, and like I said, the main is going to have a larger number of exceptional players at the start than any other tournament.

FWIW I think you are one of the very best online MTT players, so it is likely you will have an edge for a longer time in the main, and maybe still at the final table.  I just don't think that holds for most people here, and not at all convinced it does for me.  I'd be far more convinced I an likely to have an edge at a typical GUKPT final table, or in a DTD deepstack final table.

I think this is exactly where the underlying assumptions fail, and don't think you can show my fears aren't realistic with some basic maths.  I think if you tried to model something like this properly and made allowance for a field that gets tougher as you progress, it will get pretty nasty.  

For now, I am going to remain fairly sceptical that you can use "most certainly" with any confidence.

  

[Doobs]

People seem to overestimate their edge vs fish.  I think I play on 3 sites that have a higher proportion of recs than the others.  I checked my stats on those sites earlier and was fairly surprised to discover my overall ROI is 20% and my overall ROI on the fishier sites is only 5% more (and my money return is practically zero after nearly 2000 games!)

I don't think it is just me either, I checked three others I know who play on both Stars and the French sites and compared ROIs on the French sites vs Stars.  One was 10% better, one 50%, one was 4% worse.  

I know sample sizes are smaller on the fishier sites, but if you have a field with more fish than average present, then I don't think you have as much edge as you'd naturally assume (the average over the 4 people is around 15%).  I'd say all these sites I am thinking of have a significant proportion of genuinely terrible players on them.  It was pretty much the same when I played cash too, a high proportion of fish were in amongst those I won most money from, but at the other end of the table there was a fair smattering of fishier players too.  Simply, some hands you are always getting your chips in with a race, whether you are playing against Jerry Yang or Phil Ivey.

I haven't played a whole lot in the WSOP main (maybe 40 or 50 hours, maybe 15 tables), but am not at all convinced it starts off any fishier than the French sites, or some of the lower entry fee tournaments on Stars, or even in the Million on stars proper.  In addition, the tables must get tougher by the day and though you may have a big edge at the start, do you really have the same edge when the big prizes are decided (or even when the smaller ones are)?   And those big prizes are the ones that kick up your ROI long run.  As MTT players go, I am probably one of the better ones, but am I really going to have any edge at an average hold'em WSOP final table?  Do the people who sell at big markups really believe they will?  

It is often mentioned in staking requests how the fishier entry justifies the mark up in the main event, but I don't see it mentioned that the higher variance from such a big field should mean the mark up should be lowered.  Whilst the big population of fishy players is played up, the high proportion of the very best poker players on the planet doesn't get much of a mention.  

I think people underestimate the value only they get.  I am not really in Vegas for the ROI, this is very much a trip where I must be -EV after expenses, yet knowing this I am still going.  If I wanted to maximise ROI I'd be staying here and playing on my PC, or at a DTD deepstack or playing the Sky Poker Tour.  I am there for the bracelet, the entry on my Hendon Mob, and to be able to have something to bore the grandkids with.  And those things are the ones that only I really benefit from, and they should mean I should be willing to take a lower mark up too.

Anyway all feels a bit TLDR now.  Finally agree with Pleno, people should be keeping a chunk if playing a big event.  I don't mean where someone is clearly under it wants a few dollars to play something small or a reasonable schedule.  But if people want to play something big, they should back up their belief they have the big edge with hard cash.

Would have thought the Main Event at the WSOP was the lowest variance tournament of the year.

Definitely the lowest variance tourny of £1000 or more

These are both extremely false statements also. Might be true if every tournament had 6000 runners. Im pretty sure it must be the biggest variance live tournament every single year

Why is this "extremely false"?

Percentage paid is the same (if not higher) as any tournament and you're much more likely to cash in this than any other tournament.

That makes it low variance as far as I can see.

It is because the prize you get is very variable.  The first prize in the main is a bigger percentage of your buy in that in your average tournament.  The lower the number of entrants then the lower the multiple and lower multiples mean lower variance as a rule.

I could prove your statement is false just by comparing the variance in a heads up sit and go, or an STT for example.

[Doobs]

this is a must listen for everyone in this thread

It is sheets (eric haber) on the 2+2 pokercast talking staking, and he balances both sides of the discussion really well

Starts 2hrs 12 mins in - lasts for circa 30 mins

Can someone put a link up please?  Thanks

[outragous76]

this is a must listen for everyone in this thread

It is sheets (eric haber) on the 2+2 pokercast talking staking, and he balances both sides of the discussion really well

Starts 2hrs 12 mins in - lasts for circa 30 mins

Can someone put a link up please?  Thanks

http://pokercast.twoplustwo.com/listen_and_browse.php?episode=271

thought I had - sorry

[The Camel]

People seem to overestimate their edge vs fish.  I think I play on 3 sites that have a higher proportion of recs than the others.  I checked my stats on those sites earlier and was fairly surprised to discover my overall ROI is 20% and my overall ROI on the fishier sites is only 5% more (and my money return is practically zero after nearly 2000 games!)

I don't think it is just me either, I checked three others I know who play on both Stars and the French sites and compared ROIs on the French sites vs Stars.  One was 10% better, one 50%, one was 4% worse.  

I know sample sizes are smaller on the fishier sites, but if you have a field with more fish than average present, then I don't think you have as much edge as you'd naturally assume (the average over the 4 people is around 15%).  I'd say all these sites I am thinking of have a significant proportion of genuinely terrible players on them.  It was pretty much the same when I played cash too, a high proportion of fish were in amongst those I won most money from, but at the other end of the table there was a fair smattering of fishier players too.  Simply, some hands you are always getting your chips in with a race, whether you are playing against Jerry Yang or Phil Ivey.

I haven't played a whole lot in the WSOP main (maybe 40 or 50 hours, maybe 15 tables), but am not at all convinced it starts off any fishier than the French sites, or some of the lower entry fee tournaments on Stars, or even in the Million on stars proper.  In addition, the tables must get tougher by the day and though you may have a big edge at the start, do you really have the same edge when the big prizes are decided (or even when the smaller ones are)?   And those big prizes are the ones that kick up your ROI long run.  As MTT players go, I am probably one of the better ones, but am I really going to have any edge at an average hold'em WSOP final table?  Do the people who sell at big markups really believe they will?  

It is often mentioned in staking requests how the fishier entry justifies the mark up in the main event, but I don't see it mentioned that the higher variance from such a big field should mean the mark up should be lowered.  Whilst the big population of fishy players is played up, the high proportion of the very best poker players on the planet doesn't get much of a mention.  

I think people underestimate the value only they get.  I am not really in Vegas for the ROI, this is very much a trip where I must be -EV after expenses, yet knowing this I am still going.  If I wanted to maximise ROI I'd be staying here and playing on my PC, or at a DTD deepstack or playing the Sky Poker Tour.  I am there for the bracelet, the entry on my Hendon Mob, and to be able to have something to bore the grandkids with.  And those things are the ones that only I really benefit from, and they should mean I should be willing to take a lower mark up too.

Anyway all feels a bit TLDR now.  Finally agree with Pleno, people should be keeping a chunk if playing a big event.  I don't mean where someone is clearly under it wants a few dollars to play something small or a reasonable schedule.  But if people want to play something big, they should back up their belief they have the big edge with hard cash.

I think you've missed a very important point here. Mark up for the same person should certainly not decrease with an increase in field size, it should most certainly increase if that person has an edge in the first place.

I could explain this with some maths but I sense people would just find it boring

I doubt you'll be able to put the maths of this situation over my head.

If you had two tournaments with the same mix of players and the same structure, yet one with more people than the other, then if you just look at straight EV your statement looks like it should be true.

If you are talking about an investment, then it is also correct that you should pay less for the same investment with a bigger variance.

So immediately you have two things that conflict.

Then to make your statement you have to assume that tournaments are the same and the balance of good to bad players remain the same throughout, but I don't think you can be confident that the day 5 field in the main is going to be easier than the final table of a GUKPT, or that the final 3 tables of the main have a similar mix to the final 3 in a $1000 WSOP event.  There seems to be far more opportunity to get rid of the chaff in the main than in a shorter tournament, and like I said, the main is going to have a larger number of exceptional players at the start than any other tournament.

FWIW I think you are one of the very best online MTT players, so it is likely you will have an edge for a longer time in the main, and maybe still at the final table.  I just don't think that holds for most people here, and not at all convinced it does for me.  I'd be far more convinced I an likely to have an edge at a typical GUKPT final table, or in a DTD deepstack final table.

I think this is exactly where the underlying assumptions fail, and don't think you can show my fears aren't realistic with some basic maths.  I think if you tried to model something like this properly and made allowance for a field that gets tougher as you progress, it will get pretty nasty.  

For now, I am going to remain fairly sceptical that you can use "most certainly" with any confidence.

  

Ok. I'm thick

Why is there more variance in a tournament paying a min cash of 1.5x your buyin for 13% of the field of 6000 than exactly the same payout structure for a field of 100?

As far as can see you are equally likely to cash in each if the field has the same % of excellent/good/average/poor/terrible players.

(And I would obviously argue the WSOP main event has the biggest % of terrible players of any tournament in the world of £1000+)

[stato_1]

People seem to overestimate their edge vs fish.  I think I play on 3 sites that have a higher proportion of recs than the others.  I checked my stats on those sites earlier and was fairly surprised to discover my overall ROI is 20% and my overall ROI on the fishier sites is only 5% more (and my money return is practically zero after nearly 2000 games!)

I don't think it is just me either, I checked three others I know who play on both Stars and the French sites and compared ROIs on the French sites vs Stars.  One was 10% better, one 50%, one was 4% worse.  

I know sample sizes are smaller on the fishier sites, but if you have a field with more fish than average present, then I don't think you have as much edge as you'd naturally assume (the average over the 4 people is around 15%).  I'd say all these sites I am thinking of have a significant proportion of genuinely terrible players on them.  It was pretty much the same when I played cash too, a high proportion of fish were in amongst those I won most money from, but at the other end of the table there was a fair smattering of fishier players too.  Simply, some hands you are always getting your chips in with a race, whether you are playing against Jerry Yang or Phil Ivey.

I haven't played a whole lot in the WSOP main (maybe 40 or 50 hours, maybe 15 tables), but am not at all convinced it starts off any fishier than the French sites, or some of the lower entry fee tournaments on Stars, or even in the Million on stars proper.  In addition, the tables must get tougher by the day and though you may have a big edge at the start, do you really have the same edge when the big prizes are decided (or even when the smaller ones are)?   And those big prizes are the ones that kick up your ROI long run.  As MTT players go, I am probably one of the better ones, but am I really going to have any edge at an average hold'em WSOP final table?  Do the people who sell at big markups really believe they will?  

It is often mentioned in staking requests how the fishier entry justifies the mark up in the main event, but I don't see it mentioned that the higher variance from such a big field should mean the mark up should be lowered.  Whilst the big population of fishy players is played up, the high proportion of the very best poker players on the planet doesn't get much of a mention.  

I think people underestimate the value only they get.  I am not really in Vegas for the ROI, this is very much a trip where I must be -EV after expenses, yet knowing this I am still going.  If I wanted to maximise ROI I'd be staying here and playing on my PC, or at a DTD deepstack or playing the Sky Poker Tour.  I am there for the bracelet, the entry on my Hendon Mob, and to be able to have something to bore the grandkids with.  And those things are the ones that only I really benefit from, and they should mean I should be willing to take a lower mark up too.

Anyway all feels a bit TLDR now.  Finally agree with Pleno, people should be keeping a chunk if playing a big event.  I don't mean where someone is clearly under it wants a few dollars to play something small or a reasonable schedule.  But if people want to play something big, they should back up their belief they have the big edge with hard cash.

Would have thought the Main Event at the WSOP was the lowest variance tournament of the year.

Definitely the lowest variance tourny of £1000 or more

These are both extremely false statements also. Might be true if every tournament had 6000 runners. Im pretty sure it must be the biggest variance live tournament every single year

Why is this "extremely false"?

Yeah i guess something is either false or it's not so yeah its pretty hard for something to be extremely false

Percentage paid is the same (if not higher) as any tournament and you're much more likely to cash in this than any other tournament.

Yep this is true

That makes it low variance as far as I can see.

This is where the issue lies. Because there are so many runners, it is so so unlikely that you receive any of the EV value given to you by the top 3 places.  This means that it would take an incredibly long time for your long term luck to even out. Sure you might cash often, you still will not cash half the time over a long sample. Even if you did, this wouldn't make any difference really.

Variance is defined as a measure how far a set of numbers is spread out. A  high percentage of players with an long term ROI of 100% in the main event will end up with an actual one that is negative regardless of how many times they manage to play it in their lifetime. A very select few will have one that it a lot of times higher than 100. The range of these relative to other tournaments is huge.